Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Openly Gay NFL Hopeful Picked in Draft; Report: Flight 370 Search May Be in Wrong Ocean

Aired May 10, 2014 - 19:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

TERENCE MOORE, CNN SPORTS CONTRIBUTOR: Last year, he led the SEC in sacks and also tackles for losses. So if he makes the team, this could be a huge pickup for the Rams and even for the National Football League.

RANDI KAYE, CNN ANCHOR: L.Z., what kind of impact do you think this might have on other players and maybe those who are considering coming out? Because Michael Sam has certainly talked about that, saying that he's heard from others.

L.Z. GRANDERSON, CNN COMMENTATOR: You know, I've been tracking this conversation, you know, for well over ten years. You know, me and many others who have worked in this sort of advocacy work, if you will, always felt that it would be more apt that player will come out of high school and college and be too talented to be denied than an established veteran coming out of the closet while still playing and what has come to pass. If you check back and you start to look at the landscape of division I, you're seeing more athletes of all sorts of sports coming out.

So, I think what this would do is simply encourage me collegiate athletes to live their truth and not fearful of that. As far as those veterans maybe they will find encouragement seeing someone like Michael Sam and seeing Jason Collins, who is playing in the NBA playoffs right now -- maybe they'll be encouraged by their presence and come out as well.

KAYE: And, Margaret, what do you think? I mean, in terms of good PR, is this good PR for the St. Louis Rams? I mean, is this showing goodwill?

MARGARET HOOVER, CNN COMMENTATOR: Well, look. I don't think they are going to say that they made this decision based on his sexual orientation. They're going to say it because it was a smart decision for their team. I do think there is an undercurrent of good PR they will get from it, and probably some bad PR, too, but mostly good PR because that's where the hearts and minds of most Americans are.

KAYE: Samantha, how do you think? I guess the team and his fellow players will react to this?

SAMANTHA SCHACHER, POP TRIGGER: Well, for the most part, people have embraced and praised him and they should. Of course, there is always going to be some pushback but what we have seen with him and with Jason Collins, the majority of the people are embracing this and I do think this is the right step and the right direction and it really is a representation of how much more tolerant we really are as a society, especially when it comes to the NFL and the NBA.

KAYE: Brian, why do you think, why the seventh round?

BRIAN CLAYPOOL, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I personally think he should have been drafted higher. I don't want be cynic here but it being a die-hard Clippers fan and season ticket holder and living in 20 years of racism with an owner in Los Angeles, you know, I have some doubts.

I mean, why did all of these other teams pass on him for six rounds? He is a phenomenal football player. The best thing that Michael Sam can do is show everybody wrong, make the Rams be a starting linebacker and make the pro-bowl and then maybe we will have less discussion about sexual orientation for professional football players in the future.

KAYE: So, L.Z. --

GRANDERSON: If I could just --

KAYE: Sure.

GRANDERSON: I was going to just add. You know, I think it's also important to also note that, you know, sure, we can definitely, you know, think that homophobia was involved in the decision-making but we can't overlook the fact he did not have a particularly good combine performance. And the NFL G.M.s have a history of missing it.

You know, some of the greatest players we have ever seen play this game weren't even drafted. I'm talking about the Kurt Warner's and Warren Moons and talking about guys like Wes Welker. So, it's not as if they get it right every time any way.

But you can certainly say homophobia was involved. He didn't have a good combine performance and sometimes the NFL just misses it.

MOORE: Can I add a point?

KAYE: Terence, what do you think? Do you think the NFL felt any pressure to draft him?

MOORE: Well, what I was going to point out, I've been covering professional sports since the mid-1970s and one of the dirty little secrets is there have always been gay athletes for all of these teams. I really don't think this is going to be as big of a story as people think it is. We are making a big deal about it because he is the first guy to come out. But I can just remember, a couple of months ago, I had a lunch with a prominent player when plays on a prominent team throughout the NFL team throughout the '80s and '90s.

And he pointed out to me what I already knew that this team had at least two or three gay players everybody knew about and that as the player pointed out to me, nobody cared, as long as they performed which is what they did. So, that's the bottom line, that if Michael Sam gets out there and proves to be the co-def of a player of the year that he was in the SEC, which I fully expect he will do, then this is going to become a side story, maybe not this season, but over time, it's going to just be in the background.

KAYE: Terrence, you know baseball. When do you think we will see an openly gay baseball player professional?

MOORE: Well, that's a good question. Now that we have this and we have already seen signs already that people are coming out more and more, it could be sooner than people think.

KAYE: L.Z., if you were writing the headline tomorrow, what would it be?

GRANDERSON: Johnny Manziel still in Cleveland.

(LAUGHTER)

GRANDERSON: You know, I definitely agree with -- as a matter of fact, you know, Vince Lombardi talked about openly gay players on his team. You know, going back even further when Terence was covering sports. And so, you know, it's been my experience, you know, talking with a lot of guys who happen to be closet is that it's not so much about what goes on inside the locker room, but whether or not the pressure from outside the locker room would be too much for that team to withstand.

I think ultimately that will be the test for the St. Louis Rams. Once the media starts to pay attention to them, do they have the infrastructure in place to still be a successful team? And as I said earlier, I know for sure they have a head coach who knows how to handle the media and knows how to handle his locker room.

KAYE: And speaking of locker rooms. How tough do you think it's going to be for him?

GRANDERSON: Well, listen, they got to keep their quarterback upright. Sam Bradford has been getting his butt kicked basically since he got in the league and so I have to think that team has, you know, a lot of holes they need to worry about and as long as Michael Sam continues to go in there and bust his butt and do the exact same things he did when he was the top college player, he really won't be the focus. The focus will be about that offensive line, about how they compete in the toughest division in football. I mean, there's so many on the field things they have to worry about.

If they spend too much time thinking about Michael Sam and whether or not he is checking them out in the locker room then they are going to be lost.

MOORE: Plus, Randi, here is something else to consider. This is a guy, this cannot be overstated. Besides the fact being the co-def of player of the year in the SEC, which is the toughest conference, this is a guy was so respected by his teammates in Missouri, he was the team captain, OK? In Missouri -- we are not talking about a slouch team in Missouri. Missouri went to the Cotton Bowl and has done very well the last few years. The star of that team was this guy here, Sam, you cannot find one player for that Missouri team that says anything badly about him, and granted that college, but you can also project to the pros that this will be about the same thing.

KAYE: So, Samantha, what do you think this means for the NFL and it's profile? Feather in the cap or what?

SCHACHER: Well, I do think that you know, they are more tolerant than people give them credit for. I talked to my neighbor today who is a dear friend who used to play for the NFL for quite some time and he shared with me in the locker room and within the NFL, there have been to one of your other panelist points, a number of openly gay athletes within their realm, but we the public weren't aware of it.

So, I think that we are making more of a big deal of it than perhaps the players and the NFL are not. Not to say there is not discrimination and pushback but, overall, I think there is it a lot of tolerance here.

KAYE: And, Margaret, what do you think? I mean, how will society perceive this? How will this be picked up?

HOOVER: Hopefully, without much fan fare. He is a trail blazer and deserves credit for that. But I think one of the most poignant point is made by L.Z. said hopefully what will this do send a message or ripple down effect to the college players and high school players they can live their truth earlier because they don't have to be afraid of choosing to be gay or choosing their dream in sportsmanship and professional sports. That, hopefully, will be actually what does trickle down in society.

KAYE: L.Z., I'm curious how you think he is going to took to handle it. He is pretty understated guy and hasn't made a lot of media fan fare and hasn't given a ton of interviews.

GRANDERSON: Well, you have to remembered, he is being handled by Howard Bragman, who is one of the most brilliant publicists we have today. So, Howard knows exactly what he's doing. He knows much exposure he should have, and how little he should have. He knows when exposure should be and he should know who should which network should be in charge of an exposure.

So, part of the reason why you're seeing him handle this so perfectly is because he has the perfect publicist working for him. But with that being said, his publicist won't be with him once the cameras hit the field, you know, after practice, won't be with him after games. And so, hopefully, the polished person you see in front of the cameras right now will continue to be that polished person and handle the situation appropriately. If he didn't play well, own up to it and if he plays well -- you know, deflect the compliment and credit his teammates. That's how you win a locker room over and how you have to be worthy of in the NFL. MOORE: Well, you know, Randi, to add to that point, going into this NFL draft, Michael Sam had more followers on twitter than any of these potential draftees except for the quarterbacks. We know the big one, Manziel was number one. Then you had a couple of the other quarterbacks, McCarron of Alabama and one other guy, but he was third on that list. So that tells you how accepting the public is right there.

The other thing -- as far as publicity is concerned, they have done a good job of shielding him away. He's had a lot of offers to do commercial and he has only accepted one so far, Visa. He could have been out there more than he has.

So, Michael Sam, he gets in regards -- not only in regards to his publicists, but he understands what he needs to do publicity wise.

KAYE: All right. Thank you all so much. Sam, L.Z., thank you, everybody. Margaret, Brian, Terence, thank you so much.

GRANDERSON: Thank you.

KAYE: Very interesting discussion.

SCHACHER: Thank you.

KAYE: We will talk much more about Michael Sam being drafted later on this hour.

But up next, while the search goes on for the missing Malaysian Airlines plane, more people are asking critical questions where are they really looking? Is it the right area? And could the satellite data point them in a totally new direction if they just took the time to look more carefully at it?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KAYE: First on CNN, there is word today of a high tech underwater search gone wrong. A remote underwater vehicle built by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institutions has been lost at sea off the coast of New Zealand. It was examining an area more than six miles deep, similar in depth to areas where experts believe Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 could be.

And going forward, it could have been used in the search for the missing Malaysian airliner.

Earlier, I spoke with CNN analyst David Gallo. He's the director of special projects at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.

(BEGI VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID GALLO, CNN ANALYST: It's a vehicle designed very innovative by the engineers here at Woods Hole to go to the very deepest ocean depths below 6,000 meters and the vehicle sometime in the night last night, we got word today the vehicle imploded at about 9,000 meters depth. That's about a little over six miles depth. And it was in the middle, toward the end of its first leg of a new initiative to map the deepest parts of the world ocean.

So, it's a real setback in that regard. We will learn a lot from it but it hurts for the time being.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAYE: David told me the vehicle had worked great up until its failure but he said working at extreme ocean depths is, in his opinion, really pushing the envelope. So could the search for Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 be focused on the wrong ocean?

Groundbreaking "Atlantic Magazine" article suggests all search areas in the south Indian Ocean are based on bad math that would explain why not a shred of physical evidence from Flight 370 ever turned up in any search zone.

According to the report, many satellite experts believe Inmarsat satellite data is just plain wrong, and therefore, every search area drawn by calculations from the Inmarsat data could be way off base.

I want to read you this. Journalist Ari Schulman writes, "Either Inmarsat's analysis doesn't totally make sense or it's flat out wrong."

Inmarsat claims it found a difference between a southbound and northbound path based on the satellite motion. But a graph of the frequency shifts along those paths should be different in the one Inmarsat has produced.

Heartbroken Flight 370 families are begging Malaysia and Inmarsat to release the satellite info so other experts can take a look at.

Families have been told no over and over again.

Could this new report make a difference? With me now, the reports author and executive editor of "The New Atlantis", Ari Schulman.

So, Ari, take me back. When did you get first suspicious of the Inmarsat satellite data?

ARI SCHULMAN, THE NEW ATLANTIS: Well, when the report first came, I took a look at it and I saw these reports, news reports that said that other satellite experts had taken a look at this and said that it looked correct. And my interest in it really was to see if I could sort of reproduce the results, follow the work of others who are reproducing the results, and maybe refine it and see if you could narrow down most likely paths.

But once I started doing that work, and other people started doing that work, you saw that naturally the math really didn't look like it made sense. It could even be interpreted in the way that would allow you to narrow it down. These basic characteristics you would expect from the satellite map were not matched up in the graph.

KAYE: So, in terms of the math, you compared Inmarsat ping math to a game of Marco Polo. For those of us without an advanced degree in math, I mean, tell us what you mean by that. Explain how those two possibly connect.

SCHULMAN: Well, so the way that the satellite is communicating with the plane it's not actually receiving any direct information about the plain's location. There is no information about coordinates or heading, but just based on the signal itself, you can infer some things about the plane's location.

One of those is that the farther away the plane is, the longer it will take for the transmission to comeback even though it's traveling at the speed of light, it's traveling such a long distance that you can actually get some sort of reasonable guess of the distance but you don't know the direction from the satellite. So it's like a game of Marco Polo. You know how far away it is but not exactly where it is.

And similarly based on the frequency of the ping, you know the frequency that it's supposed to be transmitting at and if the plane is moving towards the satellite, it's going to change that frequency because of the Doppler Effect. It's the same thing that makes the sound of a car change when you're listening to it on the highway when it comes away from you.

So, they can use that to get a basic sense of whether the plane is traveling towards or away from the satellite and about how fast. So, they've got that set of information and that they can extrapolate back and find that would fit with that. But based on what we know about the plane's motion, the data that they published doesn't match up with that math.

KAYE: In terms of just I want to share one more bit from your article. This is the part where you question the accuracy of Inmarsat frequency shifts. You write, "But the problem of the large frequency shift before takeoff is more vexing. Exactly how fast does the graph show the plane and satellite moving away from each other prior to takeoff?" then.

SCHULMAN: Right. This was -- this was the first clue that I and others had that there was something wrong with this math, because before the takeoff, the frequency of that signal, that transmission seems to show the plane moving at least 50 miles an hour on the runway. Now, that's if the plane is moving directly away from the satellite. If it were moving at an angle it would be going faster than that. Now, that doesn't mean that is how fast the plane was going but that means the straightforward interpretation of that graph.

So, something with the graph as they have released it is wrong. You have to try other interpretations where you can get a speed that is closer to zero, which is basically how fast we know the plane was moving at that time.

KAYE: And you've talked to experts about this and what do they tell you?

SCHULMAN: Well, there are several possibilities. The first clue that we had -- for one thing, the graph is flipped. It starts all of these frequency shifts as positive when they should be negative so that the first thing they had to do to clean up the math. The other thing was that the graph as its released seems to say that the frequency shifts are only coming from the transmission from the satellite to the plane. Sorry, if this is getting a little technical. But there's another possibility which is when that satellite then passes that transmission back on to the ground station on the earth where it connects back to the Inmarsat network maybe that is producing an frequency shift also.

If you run the numbers that way the graph makes more sense. You do get a value for the plane before takeoff of moving at about 1 miles an hour which is what you would expect but it doesn't get you all the way there and that is ultimately in some sense guesswork because Inmarsat hasn't explained their numbers and hasn't explained their model.

KAYE: You said you sort -- we only have sort of part of the story here, but you took those concerns of yours to Malaysia Airlines and the Malaysian government and officials and the Australian search leaders. Did you get anywhere with them?

SCHULMAN: No. From Malaysian authorities, both Malaysia Airlines and the Malaysia Department of Transportation, I've simply gotten no responses. From the U.K. Air Accident Investigations Board, which has been doing a lot of work on the investigation and from the Australian counterparts, they both responded with very tourist replies and refusing to comment on an ongoing investigation.

I think that's a mistake in this case because this isn't the case of a plane that's certainly crashed and they are simply investigating the cause. They don't each know where it is. They don't know for sure that it has crashed but they are treating this as an investigation rather than a search and recovery operation, which it still is.

KAYE: Yes. So after so many weeks and so many millions of dollars, we are still wondering now, certainly after your article, whether or not they are looking in the right place.

Ari Schulman, stay with me, because we're going to explore this theory ahead with our experts who have been with CNN since the plane went missing.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KAYE: We are back with the shocking new theory on the fruitless search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. A report in "Atlantic Magazine" suggest searchers are looking in the wrong place because the Inmarsat satellite data used to calculate search areas is just plane wrong.

Joining me, the report's author Ari Schulman, plus our expert panel, aviation analyst and pilot Miles O'Brien, aviation analyst Les Abend, a 777 captain, and aviation analyst and science journalist Jeff Wise.

Welcome to all of you.

Jeff, to you first. When you read Ari's article, how did you react and what did you think? JEFF WISE, CNN AVIATION ANALYST: Well, I was happy because, frankly, I've been banging this drum myself and I've been on some of the same e-mail threads as Ari has been with some of these experts who have been very critical of this data and really concerned about the quality of the analysis that has been put forward by the authorities as justification for their search areas and for the search strategies.

And really, you know, especially when these searches came up empty the question becomes more and more compelling, why are they doing what they are doing? And is it time for them to stop and ask some real fundamental questions?

KAYE: So, Miles, certainly nobody can verify Inmarsat calculation because the info is being kept secret. So, do you think there's any chance that this article and this report could maybe nudge Malaysian officials or Inmarsat to release the data, maybe let some other experts take a look at it?

O'BRIEN: I hope so. You know, Ari did a good job and with all due respect to him because I know he is right here listening, he did the job based on incomplete information because the data has not been released.

There might be very well and he admits in the article -- there might very well be good explanations for all of these apparent inaccuracies in the data because they haven't released it. At this stage of the game, it's just impossible to come up with a logical explanation why the Malaysian authorities would hold back.

And, further, I think it's cruel to the families at this point, and counterproductive to the investigation because as Ari has discovered, as Jeff has discovered, as I have discovered, there are a lot of smart people out there who are doing their best to reverse engineer what Inmarsat has laid out so far and they still don't have the full picture.

So, by all means, Inmarsat, if you're listening, by all means, Malaysian authorities who actually do have the say so, let's release this data and let the world take a look at it and maybe -- just maybe -- somebody will find something that Inmarsat team and their closely held peer review when he don't know who they are missed.

Imagine that. That could happen. A lot of smart people miss things. That's how we blew up a couple of space shuttles, that's how the Mars climate orbiter ended up crashes into the planet mars. The best and brightest can miss some very obvious things.

KAYE: Les, what do you think? You read the article. I think you found it pretty disturbing.

LES ABEND, CNN AVIATION ANALYST: Well, it's not disturbing. I found it compelling. I think that -- I mean, I had to research it a few times because I'm dealing with my own pilot math, but I thought had he some interesting arguments but the -- you know, the simple fact of the matter is there are experts out that are, right now, regrouping, and I don't think this is all being done in a vacuum, and accident investigation does require a little bit of -- I don't want I don't want to use the word secrecy, but there's some aspects of accident investigation that require some containment.

And I think if you've got experts -- if you've got experts like Ari out there that can come up with information like he did --

O'BRIEN: Les, containment.

ABEND: -- then there are other -- hang on a second, Miles.

O'BRIEN: Why are we containing? What are we containing? What's the point?

ABEND: Because that's part of the investigation process, Miles.

(CROSSTALK)

O'BRIEN: What does this have to do with the criminal investigation? Finding -- there is no investigation until we find the airplane. Let's not forget that.

We don't even know where the airplane is and to say we need to contain it. Contain it? There is nothing.

So, why not let this particular aspect of it out and this has nothing to do with who -- if there was a human being who is responsible. The criminal stuff, I totally get that. You want to contain that.

But I'm curious. How would you make the argument if you were an investigator for keeping this under wraps?

ABEND: Because it's part of the process, Miles. That's really -- it gets tainted with too much information and you just have to trust the fact that there's enough experts out there that are working in the same direction that Ari is working in.

MILES O'BRIEN, CNN AVIATION ANALYST: Well, I think we are in the post -- we are in the post-trust era now.

JEFF WISE, CNN AVIATION ANALYST: We have actually released a lot of this information, and the charts and graphs that they released, they just haven't released it in a clear, legible way.

ARI SCHULMAN, THE NEW ATLANTIS: Yes, I'd like to echo that. I mean, we are here talking about whether or not we can trust the authorities and that is fine but that shouldn't be what the debate is about right now. This is what they are asking us to do. They are asking us to take on faith, to take on trust their conclusions.

At the same time, that they are releasing this data that's supposed to lend us to trust that authority, but the data doesn't back that up. It doesn't seem to show what they are saying that it's showing and it also hasn't led to any results. We haven't found the plane. We haven't found a scrap of debris, so we don't have good reasons to trust it. RANDI KAYE, CNN ANCHOR: Yes. We want to talk more about that and more certainly about what the families are trying to do and their efforts to try and get the Malaysian authorities to release more of this information. We'll talk about that other to side of this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KAYE: Back now with our panel. We were discussing whether or not the authorities searching for Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 in the right place or not.

I just want to pick, Miles, you were talking about this earlier and I guess the question is, if the towed pinger locator which we know had been down there and had sensed at least four responses from what they believe is the pingers. That's why they are searching in that area, if it wasn't them, if it wasn't the pingers, what could it have been?

O'BRIEN: Well, you know, some people have said were they attached to a marine mammal, part of a research project. I'm very skeptical of that. Most researchers would not have their devices ping every second. That's just a waste of batteries and, frankly a researcher by now would have raised his or her hand and said that was my whale, that was my shark, you know, you guys should look somewhere else.

So, that community has been thoroughly interrogated if you will or people have talked within that community and no one seems to think that is part of a scientific project. Now, we have heard some reports that there are people, fishermen who use nets with these locators on them and the same frequency. I haven't been able to verify that one. That's a possibility.

You know, it could very well have been -- remember the HMS Tireless, the British submarine that was there and, all of a sudden, well, nobody talked about it. Were they somehow in the area were they doing some sounding at the time? I suppose that's a possibility as well.

But I think going back to the simplest explanation, you have to assume, this was on the arc of the last ping and that it matched the range calculations and guesses frankly that they had about range. And there, there were pings.

So, I think you have to assume and you have to operate under the assumption that those were, in fact, from the black boxes.

KAYE: I want to talk about the families because they have shared this open letter to Malaysia's government and I just want to read part of that to you, this open letter. We implore the Malaysian government to share and release the raw Inmarsat satellite engine ping data. We feel it is necessary that the data be subject to independent third- party review. It is our hope that with out of box thinking the whole world can help to look for the plane.

Les, you don't seem to think that is a good idea -- to release this information to the families?

ABEND: Well, listen. I've been involved with an accident investigation on the peripheral side more on the critical incident -- but I've watched an accident investigation crew work, and with the NTSBA here in the States. The problem is if you start releasing too much of the data and everybody gets involved and too many cooks spoiling the brew, now, you're going to really damage the well-being of these families by sending it off on another wild goose chase possibly.

It doesn't mean that I doubt there should be more experts involved but I think that is what this regroup is all about, is that these people understand that and I can tell you from firsthand experience that there is nothing more that these people want to do but to help these families and do it through their expertise whether it's the Inmarsat data or the people looking out that airplane window trying to find debris.

KAYE: So, Ari, what else do you think Malaysian officials need to release?

SCHULMAN: Well, specifically -- I mean, I just want to say I don't think we should simply be relying on their good intentions. I'm sure they have good intentions. I think they also have an interest in making it seem interjecting a sense of confidence and the investigation has a forward direction and I think a lot of the information we have seen has been along that lines and it's been speculation presented as confident fact for the sense of giving that sense of direction.

I think that to answer your question, the data that we would want to see is the raw data that was received by the satellite, not interpreted data like elevation angles or distance but the actual recorded signals that the satellite received from the planes so that you can check the distances and you can check the frequencies and all of that. The other thing some sort of information about what model or what interpretation Inmarsat was using to turn that data into their conclusion about a southern flight path. Those are the two big things that would be important to be released.

KAYE: All right. We want to talk more about this and continue this conversation because it is fascinating especially with this new report that we're getting much more information about. So we will continue this conversation and talk a little bit more about the search for MH370, right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KAYE: The disappearance of a Boeing 777 has confounded experts and kept the world's attention for more than two months now. New polls offer insight what Americans are thinking about the mystery. A CNN/ORC poll finds nearly one in five Americans believe Flight 370 survivors are out there, 79 percent believe no one survived, and a slight majority of Americans think the plane went down near the search area, 51 percent believe that Flight 370 is in the south Indian Ocean, 46 percent think that searchers are looking in the wrong place.

So, let's bring back our expert panel.

Miles, to you first. What do you make of those poll results? Do they surprise you at all?

O'BRIEN: Not particularly. I think, you know, that sort of jibes with the conversations we have been having here.

You know, we should point out, though, there are a fair number of people and certainly among the families who still hold out some hope that somehow, some way, their family members are alive somewhere. I guess that's a question you might want to pose to the Malaysian authorities via Inmarsat.

You know, if there is really that potential and this is a search operation in essence that would be kind of a desperate search operation, why would you hold back any information at this point? This kind of thing might help, and, you know, I understand Les's point and there are sensitive aspects of investigations, but, you know, this aspect of just finding if there was a crash and where it might be, I think that's in a different realm.

KAYE: And, Jeff, what does your gut instinct tell you? I mean, is this the wrong area? Where do you think the plane is now?

WISE: Well, I mean, really this has been a ground breaking story that Ari came out with, you know, questioning the frequency analysis that Inmarsat apparently did, but there is a much -- a point to be made even that I think Ari made which is, you know, back in late March, the Malaysian prime minister held a very stunning press conference in which he told the world and in addition to the passengers families that this analysis that Inmarsat had carried out determined that the plane had to be in the southern ocean, therefore, that regrettably there was no hope for their survival. He didn't use those exact words, of course.

This is really the major point. Can we trust Inmarsat's analysis that it is in the southern ocean? And, you know, I think what Ari's piece really brings to the floor is if we don't trust them to carry out the correct analysis of the Doppler ship, can we trust them to reach a more fundamental conclusion it had to have turned up in the southern ocean because that requires a very sophisticated even more sophisticated kind of mathematics to rule out the northern path.

KAYE: Ari, you spoke to a lot of scientists on this and experts on this. What do they think? If not the Indian Ocean where is their top theory this plane might be?

SCHULMAN: Well, they all have different interpretations, they have offered different theories. Many of them say that with the data as it looks, you can't rule out a northern path over Asia. I don't think any of those conclusions are warranted. I think the most we can say from this information is that we don't really know. We can't know much of anything from it.

And that's the point I've been trying to get across. When I've been talking to Inmarsat authorities and asking them for information they keep hiding behind -- well, this is an ongoing investigation. But the cat is already out of the bag. They released this analysis, as Jeff mentioned this is the analysis that led the prime minister of Malaysia to say that the flight has been lost, and they are releasing this analysis as evidence for that, but they're not actually explaining that.

We are not -- in sense, we're not asking them to release much more than they already have. We are asking them to explain what they have already released.

KAYE: Ari, Miles, Les, Jeff, stay with me. Much more to you take about this.

Of course, Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 isn't the only missing plane missing in recent memory, remember this man? His plane vanished in the desert and drove searchers crazy for more than a year trying to find it. We will talk about lessons learned from the search for Steve Fossett. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KAYE: Welcome back. Since Flight 370 disappeared, many comparisons have been made to Air France Flight 447. That flight crashed into the Atlantic Ocean in 2009 and was not found until nearly two years later.

Another tragic air mystery was the story of Steve Fossett. He was a legendary plane and adventurer when he crashed his small plane in the Nevada desert. No one found his wreckage and his remains for more than a year.

Let's get to my aviation panel back here.

Miles O'Brien, you're the perfect guy to ask about the Steve Fossett mystery. You've even spent some time looking for him yourself, from what I understand, back in 2007. In this case, they spent a year and it turns out right where they were looking in the beginning, that's where he had crashed. And then they got a tip from a rancher who said the plane flew overhead and everybody moved the search area over to that area. Meanwhile, that was the wrong area.

So, what did we learn?

O'BRIEN: Well, these things happen all the time. In the case of Air France 447, there was a mistaken hydrological analysis of the currents, which put the search on the wrong location for a couple of months and set back the search for quite some time.

David Gallo will tell you chapter and verse on that one. It still makes him angry to talk about it today.

In the case of Steve Fossett, that was one of the areas where they initially thought the crash site, it was heavily wooded, it was up a box canyon scenario, and there was no -- you couldn't see any sign of the wreckage, given the thick canopy of trees there. And it was ultimately some hikers who found pieces of his ID near the site of the wreckage that put them on the site two years later.

So -- and looking for that was a great example. Here you are, over solid land. I was able to fly a couple of search missions out there in my aircraft. And here we are, flying over the desert. And it was absolute -- the amount of stuff that is left behind by mining interests there led to all kinds of, you know, false positives and stray and dead ends and so forth.

So, this -- so imagine all this, and you're talking now, you know, several miles beneath the sea. And that's why, perhaps, what we're talking about here is just our lack of patience for a search that is just very, very difficult.

KAYE: So, Les, what do you think? Should we buckle in and prepare for a year or two?

ABEND: Well, I think, Miles aptly pointed out that this really is part of the process. It may take that length of time, but, you know, this is part of the -- this accident investigation process is a very -- can be a very frustrating situation. And I think we're in that frustration stage right now.

KAYE: Yes, certainly are.

All right. Our thanks to Miles O'Brien, Les Abend, Jeff Wise, and Ari Schulman. Thank you all. That was really great discussion. Appreciate it.

The NFL draft was in its final moments. Then, the St. Louis Rams made their final pick. We'll tell you got drafted 249th, making history in the process. There he is.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: With the 249th pick, in the 2014 NFL draft, the St. Louis Rams select Michael Sam, defensive end, Missouri.

(CHEERS)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, the St. Louis Rams go ahead and choose Michael Sam.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAYE: That was Missouri's Michael Sam drafted last hour by the NFL's St. Louis Rams. This was his reaction. He got the news by phone from the Rams team officials. So, the NFL has its first openly gay player.

Terence Moore is here, sports contributor to CNN.com.

Terence, you can see the emotion there. What a big moment for Michael Sam. What do you think the reaction is going to be?

TERENCE MOORE, CNN.COM SPORTS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, you know, this is going to be one of those things that's going to be a big deal for a little while, but as time goes on, is going to come down, particular if he makes a team and particularly if he does well. And again, you look at the St. Louis Rams, this is a team that likes to have pass rushers blitz a lot. He's been getting a lot of criticism, Michael Sam, for being what they call a tweener -- a guy who's not quite a defensive end, not quite an NFL linebacker. If you blitz a lot, you can get by with that.

But, Randi, let me tell you something else here. And I hate to be somewhat of a killjoy here, but this could be just a little bit of a publicity stunt in this sense -- the St. Louis Rams last year were second to last in the National Football League in total attendance. Only the Oakland Raiders drew less than the Rams. And they've got that big old dome in St. Louis to try to fill.

So, what better way than to get Michael Sam from nearby University of Missouri, a guy who was very popular with his teammates, very popular with the public there, University of Missouri is huge in that entire area -- so they cannot be discounted here.

KAYE: I want to bring that up moment where she was celebrating there at home with his family and certainly with his boyfriend there. I guess, I have to ask, you know, it's not something we see every day among a football player, an openly gay football player.

How do you think this is going to play in terms of, you know, the locker room, the team? I mean, this is a guy who wanted to be recognized for his football.

MOORE: Well, you bring up a very good point because I was sitting here wondering about that myself, and I'm sure people out there are wondering the same thing. We have never seen this before on television. I mean, let's face it. This is something we have never seen before.

How it's going to play out in Middle America, you know, back in places where I was born and raised, South Bend, Indiana, I don't know.

KAYE: But he wants people to talk about him as a football player.

MOORE: Yes, and again, we're in uncharted territory here. And that aspect of it is something that we're just going to have to see. If you look in the history of television, you had, you know, so many situations where you've had groundbreaking firsts, you know, Archie Bunker kissing Sammy Davis Jr., OK, for instance. And that was a big deal.

So, this is one of those things, we have to take it a step at a time and see where it carries us. From the football side of it, that's going to take care of itself. This other thing, the other side of it, the social part of it, we just don't know.

KAYE: Terence Moore, certainly great talking with you about that, as we've been saying. It's such a big moment for Michael Sam, certainly for the NFL as well. And I'm sure this will continue to be a big story in the days ahead. We'll continue to follow it as well.

Terence, thank you. I'm Randi Kaye in New York.

"ANTHONY BOURDAIN: PARTS UNKNOWN" begins right now.

Have a great evening, everyone.